October 20, 2012

Answering Anti-Gay Bible Literalists Part 2- The Old Testament

If you have read Part 1, you are already familiar with how Biblical Literalists think. For the biblical legalist, the 66 books are God’s infallible
word. It is the literal story of human history, all the fantastic events are
true and the rules and opinions expressed are the final authority on everything
that exists, everything we could ever do or conceive of doing. They will even
make the argument that the bible can be applied to matters that we know
(through entomology, archeological and comparative study of history) that the
bronze-aged men who wrote it had no concept of in their time and for which they
did not even have the vocabulary to describe; things like homosexuality.

The Very First Thing
You Need To Do Is Clearly Define "Homosexual"

Do not get tied up in a game of semantic gymnastics.

For the most part,
Anti-Gay Bible Literalists (claiming to be guided by holy-spirit) not only try
to attach modern understandings to things written about 4000 years ago without
even knowing for sure if it was what the bible writers actually meant. They
also keep shifting and widening the definition of homosexuality and homosexual.
This makes it easier to use out of context or extremely specific bible quotes
to apply to all LGBT people when it clearly does not.

The word “HOMOSEXUAL” and its definition is actually a
fairly recent term in human history. It came about during the nineteenth
century when humans began exploring the human psyche. In 1886, it was Richard
von Krafft-Ebing who first put forward in his book Psychopathia Sexualis the notion that there were people oriented
exclusively towards the same sex. He called such people homosexual. Before this
radical new proposition, the common belief was that everyone was the same and
those who engaged in same-gender sexual behavior did so by choice or being
forced into it or having too powerful a libido. Nobody ever considered before
that same-sex attraction was an intrinsic trait.

So before you begin to debate, ensure that you properly
define “homosexuality” and “homosexual” according to the correct academic and
medical connotation which is:

HOMOSEXUALITY and its
modern slang GAY- An innate orientation towards the same sex instead of the
opposite sex

HOMOSEXUAL- A person
with an innate orientation towards the same sex instead of the opposite sex

Make it very clear you are debating about a
psycho-sexual condition that is independent of:

Behavior
(which includes everything from rape to prostitution to pederasty)A singular sexual position or sex act (anal sex)

This may confuse some people who lump everything in the same
boat. It should not.

We do not define heterosexuality as every single form of opposite sex interaction (incest, adultery,
prostitution and rape) nor do we restrict the definition to a singular sexual
act- penile/vaginal intercourse. When
you read of a story of rape between a man and a woman in the bible, it is not
an indictment against heterosexuality or all mutually consenting heterosexual
relationships. So to be intellectually consistent, you cannot take specific
cases of same-sex interaction involving rape, prostitution, pagan worship or
even anal sex and use it to indict all homosexuals. That would not be
intellectually honest.

Sexual behavior and
sexual orientation are two different things.

Someone can be completely virginal
or celibate and still have a sexual orientation (an emotional, psychological,
biological attraction to a particular gender) or even act contrary to their
orientation. For example, Oscar Wilde was heterosexually married but was a
homosexual. Some women who are heterosexual act like lesbians for pay. Some men
in prison who are heterosexual may use other men for sexual release. Sexual
behavior is not always motivated by sexual attraction. Money, peer pressure,
desperation, drugs and dominance are just as likely triggers as genuine
attraction. You can change your sexual behavior but you cannot change your
sexual orientation. It is an involuntary, deeply set trait. Before you even
have time to think or make a choice, your brain releases the cocktail of
serotonin, oxytocin and dopamine that makes your heart race, palms sweaty,
mouth dry, butterflies in the stomach, blood flow to the genitalia in response
to a particular person or erotic scenario. The ONLY choice you have is whether
to act on your innate nature or suppress it.

But back to the bible.

Homosexuality as it is
academically and medically understood today was not part of the ancient
Hebrew world-view any more so than awareness of the endocrine system or women
contributing 50% of the genetic material towards conception. There is no
ancient Hebrew word that translates as- homosexual
and if you see the word homosexual
anywhere in the Old Testament, you are using a translation that is
over-reaching and tampered by a translator adding their own spin and anachronistic
assumptions. Is it right to apply modern concepts to ancient writings that was
not and could not possibly be referring to the exact same thing? Or is it more
accurate to understand things in their proper context- cultural, historical,
linguistic?

Impress upon the Anti-Gay Biblical Literalist that the
latter is more accurate. The closest thing we have in any Hebrew writings to a
reference to people having an inherent,
gender/sexual anomaly in their physical and emotional make-up is the word saris. It refersto both male and females who were either born eunuchs or turned
into eunuchs. We will learn more about bornsaris and their role in Jewish
culture and the Gospel’s reference to them later on and it will blow your mind!

So now that we have made our definitions perfectly clear,
let us state our position which is:

The bible does not
condemn homosexuality or committed same sex relationships between consenting
adults.

The Anti-Gay Bible Legalist's position is: Yes it does!

So let’s prove our case:

Was The
Crime Of Sodom Homosexuality?

Going in biblical order, we will start with Genesis 19 and
the story of Lot.

Hospitality was a common decency expected in ancient times
when travel involved long days in harsh arid environments. Just like people are
expected to cover their nose when they sneeze, one was always expected to
welcome strangers, offer water, food and rest.
Even if your accommodation was as humble as a single tent, this human
kindness was mandated, far less if you had rich accommodations like the people
of Sodom, who had a whole walled city, fertile green land, lots of bread and
water.

Honest bible readers and the vast majority of objective
biblical scholars, even ones who still maintain that homosexuality is a sin,
all agree this account is about inhospitality to strangers, xenophobic gang
rape and pure inhumane depravity against one’s fellowman. Even the rest of the
bible confirms this. Ezekiel 16: 49, says that the sin of Sodom was greed,
pride, fullness of bread and a wicked refusal to help the poor. According to
the gospels, when neighboring villages were rude and inhospitable to Jesus and
his disciples he compared them to Sodom in Matthew
10:11-15. Even better, in the book of Jude it gets very specific about
the crime. In verse 5, it speaks about angels who forsook their natural realm,
a reference to the story in Genesis about the “Sons of God” who had
interspecies sex (angel with human) with the daughters of men. Then it mentions
Sodom as being guilty of the same for going after “strange flesh”. The actual
ancient Greek term used is “heteras” which ironically is the root of the
word heterosexual
i.e. men are of a different flesh than women. So in this scripture it is clear
it is not referring to “the same” flesh as humans but it translates literally
as “different form/flesh”, meaning supernatural or not the same as human flesh. What we have here folks is a case of
humans (knowingly or unknowingly) wanting to have sex with angels.

Is the story of Sodom about xenophobic, inhospitable, gang rape prompted by selfishness and pride....

Or mutually consenting, loving same sex relationships? Please re-read it carefully and cross reference with other scriptures that mention it.

If Sodom was an entirely “gay city” it certainly would not
have been populous as described in the bible, since any agrarian/military
civilization’s success in ancient times depended heavily on population size
(which is why the nation of Israel placed so much emphasis on being as numerous
as the grains of sand) to be workers in the fields and feed a mighty military.
Obviously people in Sodom were having lots of children. I am not saying there
were no gay men or lesbians but it is more likely the same ratio today applied
back then and LGBT people were in the minority. In addition, Lot’s daughters
were engaged to men in the city and Lot even offered his daughters to be raped
instead of the men, not a very smart move if he knew the city was full of men
who did not find women viable sexual partners.

If your
priest/pastor/reverend has supposedly studied the bible, Hebrew and Greek and
is perpetuating the falsehood that the words “sodomy” and “sodomite” PROVES
that Sodom was a gay city, they are exploiting your ignorance. Those words did not come from the original
Hebrew word used in passages like 2 Kings 23:7to describe male temple prostitute of the
Canaanite Goddess Ashtoreth. The Hebrew word for Sodom is sodem which means to burn. The Hebrew word for a cult-prositute
male or female is qadesh.

And what motivates rape in the first place? A crush? Romantic
feelings? No. Rape is all about power and dominance. In ancient times it was a
common practice of military men when they wanted to humiliate the men of
another conquered tribe. In prisons today, it is still a common practice for
the same reasons and the main perpetrators are self-identified heterosexual men. If someone is intent
on raping, gender is no issue because the personhood of the victim is not
important. The rapist is not being turned on by their face, body, loving
reciprocation and enjoyment. He is being turned on by the struggling,
helplessness, pain, suffering, crying, screams, blood, humiliation and his
total control over the victim.

Whether the men of Sodom wanted to rape the angels because
they knew they were supernatural and wanted to steal some kind of mystical
power or just out of plain hatred and spite to teach the foreigner Lot a
lesson: You are a stranger in our city and have no right to bring foreign
guests inside our city walls without permission.The context and other biblical references to Sodom clearly
shows that it was not destroyed because of people having a homosexual
orientation or wanting committed same-sex relationships.

The
Holiness Code Of The Mosaic Law (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and Deuteronomy
23:17-18.)

Abominable Christmas Ham and American Eagle

The God Hates Fags crowd love holding these references up on
their placards, “Thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman it is an
abomination.”

Contrary to popular
belief, the Hebrew word for abomination does not mean “gross evil” it simply
means not kosher or forbidden/foreign. It is also closely linked with idolatry
and idol worship.

Seems clear enough when you take it at face value and remember
Biblical Illiteracy Factor 2, certain people care more about what a scripture
seems to SAY whenever convenient instead of what a scripture MEANS. In order to
understand what the scripture means, we have to go back to the original
language and the context.

Due to corroboration from Leviticus 20:13 and
Deuteronomy 23:17-18, I think it can be concluded that this passage is indeed
about a form of male same-sex intercourse. But that’s it. It is not about homosexuality, the orientation or even all loving same sex relationships. This is further
supported by the context and the Hebrew word for “abomination” and its
comparative use in other places. First
let us look at the context.

So here were these exiles wandering the wilderness, trying
to establish a separate nation and conquer the people inhabiting the land they
believed was promised to them by Yahweh. In order to set themselves apart from
the Amorites, Canaanites and Hittites, they were given, according to their
account, a set of laws from God, 613 in all. These laws covered everything from
civil, dietary, hygiene, domestic, economic and of course spiritual practices.

After a blood sacrifice of one's children to Molech or Baal....

The custom of the surrounding Canaanites was to have a pagan sex ritual for fertility with a qadesh or temple prostitute who could be female or a castrated male that served the role of a female.

Anything that the
surrounding nations of non-Hebrews practiced- eating pork, getting tattoos,
mixing fabrics, mixing crops were deemed an abomination. There were actually
two types of abominations. The word sheqets was used to refer to non-kosher
foods, fabrics, farming practices. The word tobeah/toveah was always used in
connection to anything related to pagan idolatry. Even the idols themselves
were called tobeah/toveah.

One of the tobeah things to do was to practice any kind of
spiritual rite that the pagan tribes practiced in service to their God and
Goddess- Baal, Molech, Ashtoreth. Monotheism was a new kettle of fish for the
Hebrews, who like most people in their time were aware of many Gods and
Goddesses. Throughout the Old Testament, they are always falling back into
worshipping other Gods and Goddesses and have to be reminded all the time to
only serve Yahweh or risk his wrath upon them. One of the pagan practices
common at the time was sacred sexual rites performed by a qadesh/qadesha, a
male or female prostitute. In fact, parents would sacrifice their children by
making them eunuch temple prostitutes in service to Molech and Ashtoreth.

It amazes me that people pull out just one verse of
Leviticus Chapter 18 without reading the WHOLE CHAPTER which clearly is about
the aforementioned practices that are part of cultic sex worship. Leviticus 18
begins this way…. “And the LORD spake
unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am
the LORD your God. After the doings of
the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of
the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk
in their ordinances.”

What were the “ordinances” prevalent in the land of Canaan?
The chapter goes on to describe the
various “tobeah” (pagan idolatry) practices such as incest related acts and
bestiality. Then in verse 21, right before it the famous verse 22, it speaks
about sacrificing children to Molech and only after that it references two men
lying together AS WITH A WOMAN.

If it were not for that last part, “AS WITH A WOMAN”, the
bible legalist may be able to get a point on his side of the argument. But
because of that particular specification, we know this passage is not about
homosexuality in general but a particular sex act or rite that is deemed
tobeah. Male temple prostitutes or qadesh were often castrated so that they
would be “like women”. They were used for fertility rituals after one
sacrificed their child to Molech.

This passage is about qadesh and pagan sex rites not about homosexuals
or loving same-sex relationships. It also fails to mention lesbians by the way,
which would have been a good time to do so, if indeed the purpose of the law
was to ban homosexuality in general. Did the Israelites not know about
lesbians? Or was it, like masturbation or sexual play between unmarried lovers
(Song of Solomon) not even an important enough issue to legislate?

Cherry Picking The Old Testament To Condemn What You Don’t
Like

I said it before and I will say it again, no bible thumper
follows all of Leviticus and so they render themselves-hypocrites when held up
to closer scrutiny.

Some like to claim
that the Mosaic Law was divided into Ceremonial Law and a Moral Law and the
moral law like the ten commandments and includes passages used to condemn at
least some form of same-sex intercourse between men, still applies. Well,
according to Jewish scholars of their OWN writings, no such distinction exists.
The 613 Laws are part of one Mosaic Legal Code. In addition, they point to the
fact that the law was for “The Children Of Israel” not for you and me. This
doctrine is purely a Christian construct on someone else’s religion.

Among the many “abominations”, here are some things also
punishable by death in Leviticus:

Having sex with a menstruating woman

A child cursing their parent

Working on the Sabbath

If you are going to use Leviticus to condemn LGBT people,
you also condemn yourself as a hypocrite if you too do not follow all 613 laws.

In addition, to claim that “biblical marriage” is the same
as the post-Victorian traditional concept of marriage is well, not entirely
accurate. According to the bible marriage is everything from arranged
marriages, cousins marrying, brothers marrying sisters (Abraham and Sarah),
brother in laws marrying their widowed sister in laws; the use of concubines to
slave girls; forcing rape victims and conquered women to marry the men who
claimed them against their full will, just see Deut. 25:5-6; Gen. 38:8,Exodus 21:10-11; 2 Sam. 12:7-8, Exodus 21:2-4 and
Deut. 22:28-29. There have been all kinds of marital arrangements in the bible,
some of which were claimed to be sanctioned by Yahweh. To pick one that most
fits the modern definition you would like to defend and declare it THE BIBLICAL
STANDARD is also not being entirely honest.

Do we really apply biblical standards today?

Born Eunuchs-Saris A Case For Gender Diversity In Nature

Anti-gay biblical literalists need to maintain that God does
not create anything except obviously masculine, heterosexual men and obviously
feminine heterosexual women. They say it is a perverted CHOICE that makes
people behave in any way atypical to traditional gender roles and sexuality.
However, there is proof that is not what the ancient Hebrews believed.

According to the Mosaic Holiness Code (see Deuteronomy 23:1-2.)no one who had their testicles removed
could enter the temple or partake of the holy offering temurah, neither could their wives. These castrated men were called
saris. However, in Jeremiah 34:15-19, it mentions eunuchs who
were serving in the temple. How come?

Well, if we go to the Talmud, we learn
about a group of eunuchs who were classified as “born eunuchs”. They did not
have any physical deformity of the genitalia and so could enjoy full temple
inclusion and partake of the temurah. So what it was that made them be
described as eunuchs?

It was the fact they were effeminate for
men or overly masculine for women. I quote from the Talmud:

“Who is a congenital
saris [a born eunuch]? 13 Any person who is twenty years of age and has not
produced two pubic hairs. 14 And even if
he produced them afterwards he is deemed to be a saris [born eunuch]in all respects. He whose voice is abnormal so that one cannot distinguish whether it is
that of a man or of a woman.

Any woman who is
twenty years of age and has not produced two pubic hairs. And even if she produces them afterwards she is deemed to be a woman
incapable of procreationin all
respects. She has no breasts and suffers pain during copulation. One whose voice is deep so that one cannot
distinguish whether it is that of a man or of a woman.”

In the New Testament, Jesus is said to have mentioned these
saris in Matthew 19, when he refers to “born eunuchs” and he certainly was not
condemning them.

What is a biblical scholar supposed to conclude from these
passages? Well, obviously that the Hebrews, though primitive had already
observed that sexual anomalies existed among their people and saw they were
congenital. They defined physical and temperamental traits the best way they
knew how, for they had no other benchmarks. Today we know after over 100 years
of psychological study that human sexuality and gender is naturally diverse.
Every year, millions of children are born who are intersex or have chromosomal,
hormonal, psychological variances as it relates to gender and sexuality.

The ancient Hebrews, even if they did not know about genetics,
bacteria and the solar system, were at least smart enough to know these characteristics
were inbred, not a choice and not a reason to ill-treat a person.

Were David And Jonathan Genuinely In Love With Each Other?

“the soul (nephesh) of Jonathan was (qashar) knit with the (nephesh) soul of David, and Jonathan loved (ahab) him as his own (nephesh) soul.”

The Hebrews had many words
for “love”. They made clear distinctions between brotherly/familial love,
Divine spiritual love and romantic love. When speaking about love between
husband and wife and lovers, the Hebrews used the word ahab. The word ahab is
used to describe the love between Jacob and Rachel in Genesis 29:20 and the
love of the Shulamite girl for her shepherd boy in the Song of Solomon 3:1-4.

So
it is very curious that when the story of Jonathan and David unfolds, it is not
the term for brotherly love or Divine love but ahab love between them in 1 Samuel 18:1-4. More importantly, there
is the use of the Hebrew words quashar (knit) and nephesh (soul- the self,
life, desire, passion), which when used together in the bible are almost always
in reference to marriage vows or
soul-mates, who become “one-flesh”.

So when the passage in
Samuel says: “the soul (nephesh) of
Jonathan was (qashar) knit with the (nephesh) soul of David, and
Jonathan loved (ahab) him as his own (nephesh) soul.” We cannot help but wonder at the nature of
this love. If this was an opposite sex pair, the natural assumption would be
this was a romantic relationship and one of the greatest love stories ever. It
is only because the story refers to two men that the nature of the love is
relegated to “brotherly love”

Other
indicators that make a clear distinction are:

The
fact that although David eventually marries Jonathan’s sister Michal, the bible
is very careful to show that David does not love her and it was a marriage for
political alliances. When he marries the princess Michal, Saul calls him, “son
in law in the two”, so who is the other child? Jonathan perhaps?

The
reaction of Jonathan and David when they realize they can no longer see one
another. According to the account in Samuel, they embraced and wept repeatedly,
only parting after swearing an eternal covenant to one another. It would be a
promise David kept years later even through it was extremely politically
inconvenient to him.

David’s
lament for Jonathan when he was slain in battle: “I am distressed
for you my brother Jonathan;

Greatly beloved were you to me;your love to me was wonderful, passing the love
of women.”
(2 Samuel 1: 26-27)

Anti-Gay Biblical Literalists love to reduce the relationships of gays and lesbians down to a singular sex act to avoid the fact...

There is genuine love, commitment, self-sacrifice and intimacy that can outlast life's challenges including persecution and prejudice.

One of the wide
circles Anti-Gay Biblical Literalists make around the subject of homosexuality
is the aspect of LOVE. They try to reduce the relationship between gays and
lesbians to sex, lust and childhood dysfunction as a means to ignore the fact
that gays and lesbians feel the same kind of love for their partner as straight
couples do for theirs. The same willingness to compromise, self-sacrifice and
set aside the individual ego for authentic soul union with another is what makes
it possible for gay couples to last through sickness, health, richer, poorer,
better and worse. Sex alone does not do this.

So in conclusion
of your Old Testament argument:

The word “homosexual”
and the way we understand it today is not covered in the Old Testament

The story of
Sodom is about inhospitality and inhumanity not homosexuality

The Mosaic Law
deals with specific same sex acts that were related to tobeah/toveah activities,
namely idolatrous sex rites involving qadesh

The Mosaic Law
cannot be cherry picked without indicting the cherry-picker who does not follow
the entire legislation in respect to diet, clothing, agricultural practices and
keeping the Sabbath.

About Me

I was born in Besancon France and grew up in my parents' homeland of Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean and now work and travel around the region in the Marketing/Advertising field. My specialty? Trendspotting, consumer behavior, original ideas for companies to do community outreach. However, my true passion lies in solving the global challenges that threaten our planet and its species. To that end, I have been blogging for a long time on my own site and I also wrote a few articles for The Huffington Post. I am a member of the USOLVE School of Social Entrepreneurship and currently doing an Alternative MBA Social Innovation.

I want more understanding, empathy, and enlightenment to influence the human race, starting with me.

I am neither left nor right, I am UP.

The left and right are keeping us going around in circles instead of evolving UPWARD.